Can a wife be compelled to testify against her husband in a non-marital criminal matter – if it turns out she’s not his ONLY wife? That is, if he’s a bigamist?
Interested in relevant conjecture both in and outside Utah.
IANAL but I’ll venture a WAG.
The first woman married is the man’s legitimate wife. My guess is the second marriage, being illegal, is essentially void. So, first wife cannot testify…second wife can testify as she was never legally his wife (even though she thought she was).
I always thought it was that a spouse could not be compelled to testify. If she wanted to, would she be allowed to?
What if the woman divulged incriminating evidence to the man, thinking the marriage was valid? Can the man be compelled to testify?
There are two types of spousal immunity. I’ll just quote what pravnik wrote in another thread where this was being discussed. Basically you can stop your spouse from yapping (or at least having what they said used against you) regardless if your spouse wants to tell (with the exception of Federal court as noted below). I forget however if this priviledge extends to crimes you committed before you were married (i.e. you tell her about someone you killed before you ever met her and she tells the police).
Interesting point.
DISCLAIMER: Once again…IANAL and admit here and now this is just speculation to be food for thought just for the fun of it till a lawyer or expert shows up (trying to head off attorneys here who like to chastise non-lawyers for speculating on the law).
I would think (hope) the court might view that as protected communication. She made the communication on the assumption the marriage was valid and the protection existed and had no reason to suppose it was otherwise. It’s not her fault the marriage is bogus. The reverse, the guy blabbing, knows he is not legally married so (if he bothered to think about it) might be said to have no expectation of protected communication.
I actually had a case like this a few years ago. A guy on probation tried to kill his probation officer with a bomb (maimed him pretty bad, but didn’t kill him) When we searched the suspect’s car, we found a marriage license from Reno. We all knew that he was already married, but his new wife didn’t. They had discussed the plans to kill the officer, and at least the woman believed that the marriage was legal and valid.
She was allowed to testify at trial (obviously, she cut a deal to avoid charges herself). The court ruled that the second marriage was invalid, so the privilege did not exist. As far as I know, this ruling was not appealed.
BTW, the guy got 45 years in prison.
Well, we;ve heard from the IANALs – is there a lawyer in the house?
There are several lawyers in this house. Since they are not contributing I expect they have somehow overlooked this thread or, more likely (since I think some of them would have perused this by now), do not have a ready answer. My dad is a lawyer and combined with my sense of the lawyers here they seem to be loathe to offer opinions without hard case law to back them up. This has always pissed me off with my dad. Even if I stipulate that I understand he is offering only opinion he seems extremely reluctant to give it. To me a venue like this calls for opinoins. Even if they aren’t correct I would value the toughts of a legitmate attorney (or other person schooled in law) to speculate on what they think might happen based upon what they know of the law. An educated guess is better than an uneducated one (actually I’d say my opinoins are minorly educated but an attorney’s guess would be FAR better than my opinions).
I don’t know if it is an ingrained fear of being made liable for what they say (regradless of any real sense that someone here would sue…more a knee jerk reaction) or fear of making a wrong analysis when they are supposed to be experts but lacking case law to fall back on I’m not sure we will get a real attorney to respond…much as I wish it were otherwise.
This was one of the plot twists in Agatha Christie’s story/play/movie Witness for the Prosecution, where the main prosecution witness was the defendant’s wife… but a bigamousl marriage, so she wasn’t really his wife. It was stated in the movie that a legally married wife was not allowed to testify.
Of course, you shouldn’t trust movies for accurate legal advice, and it referred to English law, not American anyway.